Guns at work/in trunks

[Guest 4x4le]

I remember when the guns in trunks bill was in the works. I was able to go to tennessee.gov and read it.  It went into effect july 1 2013 if I remember correctly. I failed to save or print it thinking it would continue to be easy for me to find.

 

Shortly after its passing some states attorney opted to give his "opinion" on the matter and the media took what he said out of context in order to deliberately mislead, and it worked. In my opinion the law had no need for amendments as it was written, at least for where I work however with the lack any test cases and the media regurgitating one man's misquote businesses assumed they can ignore the law.

 

This prompted the recent amendments as well as some things I need some help finding/understanding.

 

First I would really like to read the law and amendment. WHERE CAN I FIND THIS? Numerous searches yield tons of news articles and forum discussions on various websites but no links to the law as written and amended.

 

The place I work has some chatter on the floor that they are changing their firearm policy to comply with the law, however it seems to not be consistent with the law.   

 

They are saying that when we go through the guard shack we are subject to a search (always have been) but it is to make sure that we are in compliance with their new policy. I am under the impression that we could be wearing the gun and once parked even get out and place hands on the loaded gun to transfer it to the trunk if that is where we desire to leave it. So a gate search seems like a waste (although it is within their rights to search employees on the premises). 

 

Another thing is we are to notify them of our permit, and park in a designated area. I was not aware they could require us to notify them that we are gun owners, permit holders, or that we have a gun. I did not think this was in the law but once again I need to reread it. Furthermore, being placed in a "special" section of the parking lot seems like punishment which is exactly what this law was intended to prohibit. My guess is it will be one of the parking lots that are literally 1 mile from the entrance that we are required to enter when reporting to work.

 

There is also talk that they will require the gun to be locked inside the glovebox, locking center console, or safe that is attached to the vehicle. I do not recall this being in the law, I understood that the vehicle being locked with the weapon out of sight was OK.  

 

I have already heard from some of the pro gun staffers that the meetings that have been held about these policy changes are so they are technically abiding by the law while being as discouraging as possible even if it means termination of employees. This bothers me on a few levels. As far as I know there are not any test cases. Chances are that the first one would be picked up or partially funded by pro gun groups. Although it would by my place of works own fault, this could end up being costly to them, cause hardship to the worker and cost the union. When no one wins and everyone loses its just a bad deal. 

 

 

I am a proud union member, and involved with the union more than just being a member. I also have family that are staff. Unfortunately, and most likely to no ones surprise there are a few very incompetent people in office at my local union, a few of which also happen to lean very left.

 

I want to get as much info on this as well as links to the law as written so I can present it to whom it concerns in front of our membership at meetings before we end up with a letter of agreement that  intends to undermine the law and our basic civil rights. I know this will be easier to fix now than fix later.

 

Thank you in advance!

 

PS

 

I know many people have the private property owners wishes in mind (maybe not on this site), but I don't believe a foreign owned business that is publicly traded whom was GIVEN the land they built their factory on is a person, private, or above the law.

[K191145]

Found this, don't know how much it helps.

 

http://hrprofessionalsmagazine.com/new-guns-in-parking-lots-statute-effective-july-1-what-are-the-implications-for-tennessee-employers/

Still, Confusion Abounds
 
The problem for employers is confusion has arisen from conflicting expressions of lawmakers’ intent as to the effect of this law in the employment context.  Although the statute does not explicitly prohibit employers from maintaining a policy that would make the possession of a firearm on the employer’s property a disciplinary offense, it appears that enforcing such a policy could open an employer to a wrongful discharge claim.
 
During consideration of the bill, there were several indicators to suggest that the bill was not intended to limit an employer’s ability to terminate an employee for storing weapons on its parking lot even if the employee had a valid permit.  The House withdrew an amendment to the bill that provided employees could not be terminated for exercising their rights under the statute.  Additionally, Representative Jeremy Faison (the House sponsor) contended in committee hearings and during floor debate that the bill would not affect employers’ abilities to fire anyone.
 
However, following passage of the bill, Senator Ramsey and a group of four other Senators submitted a letter dated February 11, 2013 to the Senate Journal explaining the purpose of the bill is simple—“to ensure that the right to bear arms is not effectively nullified by policies that force people to leave their firearms at home when they go to work or carry on their daily routines.”  The letter also stated that employers who terminate employees for exercising their rights under the bill may violate the State’s “clear public policy” that handgun permit holders are allowed to transport and store firearms and ammunition (subject to the provisions set forth in the bill).  Additionally, the Senators stated that an employee terminated solely for exercising the right as a permit holder to store or transport firearms and ammunition in parking lots may have a claim for retaliatory or wrongful discharge.

 

 

[DaveTN]

I sure someone will post a link to it, but basically it just removes the criminal charge of carrying on posted parking lots. Your employer can still fire you. Tennessee is an employment at will state; they don’t have to give a reason unless you have an employment contract. If you are union; you do have a contract. Yours will boil down to whatever is stated in your contract. If your contract doesn’t address it; your union officials need to find out from the company what the policy is. Then it can be addressed at the next contract negotiations. Edited June 17, 2015 by DaveTN

[peejman]

TN Code Annotated:  https://www.lexisnexis.com/hottopics/tncode/   

 

 

TENNESSEE CODE ANNOTATED
© 2015 by The State of Tennessee
All rights reserved
*** Current through the 2014 Regular Session and amendments approved at the November 4, 2014 General Election ***
Title 39  Criminal Offenses  
Chapter 17  Offenses Against Public Health, Safety and Welfare  
Part 13  Weapons
Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-17-1313  (2014)

39-17-1313.  Transporting and storing a firearm or firearm ammunition in permit holder's motor vehicle.

  (a) Notwithstanding any provision of law or any ordinance or resolution adopted by the governing body of a city, county or metropolitan government, including any ordinance or resolution enacted before April 8, 1986, that prohibits or regulates the possession, transportation or storage of a firearm or firearm ammunition by a handgun carry permit holder, the holder of a valid handgun carry permit recognized in Tennessee may, unless expressly prohibited by federal law, transport and store a firearm or firearm ammunition in the permit holder's motor vehicle, as defined in § 55-1-103, while on or utilizing any public or private parking area if:

   (1) The permit holder's motor vehicle is parked in a location where it is permitted to be; and

   (2) The firearm or ammunition being transported or stored in the motor vehicle:

      (A) Is kept from ordinary observation if the permit holder is in the motor vehicle; or

      (B) Is kept from ordinary observation and locked within the trunk, glove box, or interior of the person's motor vehicle or a container securely affixed to such motor vehicle if the permit holder is not in the motor vehicle.

(b) No business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property shall be held liable in any civil action for damages, injuries or death resulting from or arising out of another's actions involving a firearm or ammunition transported or stored by the holder of a valid handgun carry permit in the permit holder's motor vehicle unless the business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property commits an offense involving the use of the stored firearm or ammunition or intentionally solicits or procures the conduct resulting in the damage, injury or death. Nor shall a business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property be responsible for the theft of a firearm or ammunition stored by the holder of a valid handgun carry permit in the permit holder's motor vehicle.

(c) For purposes of this section:

   (1) "Motor vehicle" means any motor vehicle as defined in § 55-1-103, which is in the lawful possession of the permit holder, but does not include any motor vehicle which is owned or leased by a governmental or business entity and that is provided by such entity to an employee for use during the course of employment if the entity has adopted a written policy prohibiting firearms or ammunition not required for employment within the entity's motor vehicles; and

   (2)  (A) "Parking area" means any property provided by a business entity, public or private employer, or the owner, manager, or legal possessor of the property for the purpose of permitting its invitees, customers, clients or employees to park privately owned motor vehicles; and

      (B) "Parking area" does not include the grounds or property of an owner-occupied, single-family detached residence, or a tenant-occupied single-family detached residence.

(d) A handgun carry permit holder transporting, storing or both transporting and storing a firearm or firearm ammunition in accordance with this section does not violate this section if the firearm or firearm ammunition is observed by another person or security device during the ordinary course of the handgun carry permit holder securing the firearm or firearm ammunition from observation in or on a motor vehicle.

HISTORY: Acts 2013, ch. 16, § 1; 2014, ch. 498, § 1; 2014, ch. 505, §§ 1 - 6; 2014, ch. 768, § 1.

 

 

 

Which says "The permit holder's motor vehicle is parked in a location where it is permitted to be" ... which implies that they can designate a specific parking area.  Whether that constitutes discrimination is up to the lawyers.

 

 

SB1058:  http://www.capitol.tn.gov/Bills/109/Bill/SB1058.pdf  which goes into effect July 1, 2015 (2 weeks from today) is an amendment to 39-17-1313 which basically says you can sue if you think you got fired for doing something otherwise legal.  I think case law (if there is any) could become a very interesting precedent. 

Edited June 17, 2015 by peejman

[Guest 4x4le]

Thank you everyone for the help and info. It will come in very usefull most likely.
And I understand that in most cases with Tennessee being right-to-work that if there is something they cannot legally fire you for then they can just do it for no reason. That is the primary benefit to me of being in a union shop. We have a contract. We both agree what the rules are and that punishment can only be given for breaking them. Layoffs are done by seniority. So once you have a little time in as long as you do your job there is nothing to worry about and the company gets to retain people that do good work. Win win.

I think the Japanese mama company is just overreacting but preventing wrongfull termination and policy is better than trying to overturn policy so I am going to get to work on this.

Thanks again everyone. I think I will like it here.

[homeagain]

Thank you everyone for the help and info. It will come in very usefull most likely.
And I understand that in most cases with Tennessee being right-to-work that if there is something they cannot legally fire you for then they can just do it for no reason. That is the primary benefit to me of being in a union shop. We have a contract. We both agree what the rules are and that punishment can only be given for breaking them. Layoffs are done by seniority. So once you have a little time in as long as you do your job there is nothing to worry about and the company gets to retain people that do good work. Win win.
I think the Japanese mama company is just overreacting but preventing wrongfull termination and policy is better than trying to overturn policy so I am going to get to work on this.
Thanks again everyone. I think I will like it here.

Actually it's an at-will state in absence of property rights (which your CBA grants). Right to work simply means that collectively bargained employers can't force union membership as a condition of employment.

The question I have is how would they know that you have a HCP and are storing a firearm in your vehicle per the law? I'm not so convinced that an employer has a right to know who does and who does not possess a HCP. It isn't job-related, as would be a valid driver license, for example, if one of your essential functions was to operate a company vehicle.

[Guest 4x4le]

Actually it's an at-will state in absence of property rights (which your CBA grants). Right to work simply means that collectively bargained employers can't force union membership as a condition  of employment.

The question I have is how would they know that you have a HCP and are storing a firearm in your vehicle per the law? I'm not so convinced that an employer has a right to know who does and who does not possess a HCP. It isn't job-related, as would be a valid driver license, for example, if one of your essential functions was to operate a company vehicle.

 

 

Thats my mistake. We use that term generically and even though it is technically incorrect it is heard so often it sticks with you.

 

Anyways to your question about their knowledge of hcp, that is one of the things I intend to stop. The company's hopes are to tell us what the new policy is keeping their fingers crossed that we don't know what the law is. Now although I have read it in the past I was having trouble finding the actual law. Anyways the policy that we are hearing about (which is just rumors at the moment) is that they will insist on knowing who has hcp's and intends to store weapons in their vehicles. They hope people will fear that not telling them will potentially cost them their job. 

 

The property searches are actually written in the contract so we have already agreed to that.